Lodge, I've seen companies with billions of sha
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 469)
Posted On: 02/28/2019 8:24:21 PM
Lodge,
I've seen companies with billions of shares outstanding do reverse splits of 100 or more to 1, but it brought them back to tens or hundreds of millions of shares. I cannot accept the rationale for taking a company with roughly 150 million shares outstanding, and a half billion authorized down at all, but certainly not by 99% of more with a 1 for 100 being the smallest R/S suggested in their prospectus.
Perhaps those who supported the trip were impressed by what they saw and heard, but please explain to me how we prosper if our total shares are reduced to something like a half million shares, and the O/S for the company grows to just 50 million, which is rather small, and would only represent 10% of the growth they're permitted.
I don't believe anyone in the companies management would say they won't be back above 100 million shares in a few years. As I've said, it makes sense to bring billions of shares down, though most of the time it doesn't work. If I thought their was a good reason to bring 150 million down to 75 million, I could support it, perhaps even down to 50 million, but you can't find many companies with under 50 million shares outstanding, the company is talking about taking us down to 150,000 or less. The Nasdaq is a great goal, but getting on it should come from growing the share price, not this way.
Gary
I've seen companies with billions of shares outstanding do reverse splits of 100 or more to 1, but it brought them back to tens or hundreds of millions of shares. I cannot accept the rationale for taking a company with roughly 150 million shares outstanding, and a half billion authorized down at all, but certainly not by 99% of more with a 1 for 100 being the smallest R/S suggested in their prospectus.
Perhaps those who supported the trip were impressed by what they saw and heard, but please explain to me how we prosper if our total shares are reduced to something like a half million shares, and the O/S for the company grows to just 50 million, which is rather small, and would only represent 10% of the growth they're permitted.
I don't believe anyone in the companies management would say they won't be back above 100 million shares in a few years. As I've said, it makes sense to bring billions of shares down, though most of the time it doesn't work. If I thought their was a good reason to bring 150 million down to 75 million, I could support it, perhaps even down to 50 million, but you can't find many companies with under 50 million shares outstanding, the company is talking about taking us down to 150,000 or less. The Nasdaq is a great goal, but getting on it should come from growing the share price, not this way.
Gary
(0)
(0)